The Cecil Whig. [volume] (Elkton, Md.) 1841-current, 1887-07-23

rs the question of Bishop -i8lms' eli
gibility has been raised. and to some ex-
tent has been made subject Of news
paper comment, the following carefully
prepared opinion of a well known Mary
land lawyer and churchmar viii be read
with interest by Episcopaiians.
N<>iS A. s. 4beH d Co.,: As question
has been made III some OF the secular
papers Of the country as to Bishop Adams
eligibility to the Diocese of EaSton, and
as & is desirable that there should be no
misrepresentation anywhere upon this
subject, | respectfully ask the pubiica-
tion of this note, 1t is held, as under
stand, by those who entertain such doubts
that the alleged ineligibiiity is created by
| title /, canon Is, section III, which treats
of episcopal designations. SubSectiuas /,
aud , of section i6 provide that 1T It
/ j.>Lap shall make known IN writing to
| the House of Bishops Of during or within
| six months of the meeting OF the General
| t0uvcntionl or to the presiding bishop
! jit not within six months of such meet
| iHgl such his desire, with the reasons
moving him thereto And in each ease
| appropriate Investigation is made, and
| the resignation is accepted or refused. il
| the slnm Of the bishops. This prn,i-
| sion, it will be seen, is Gtttra}, aud i'll
! cludes as well missionary as diocesan
| bishops, 1t being manilestly wise that
! there should be lodged somewhere some
! discretion as to the acceptance OF all such
designations. Subsection then provides
| that "H0 dt0rcSda or assistant diHbop whose
resi- gnation has been conSummated pur-
suaut to this section shall, under any
circumstances, be eiis iblo 10 any diocese
now in union or which may be hereafter
admitted into union with this chulch. ="
| Here is the canonjcal prohibition against
| the translation OF (. bishop fr'W 0He dio
ceSc to another. and it properly includes
in express terms an assistant bishop, be
| cause canon 10, sec. }, provides that there
| shall be but Que ASST .taut bishop in a
! diocese at the same time, and that he
shall in all eases suo ,eeG the bishop il
| case of surviving him, thus assuring to
the assistant bishop in event OF his sur
vivai the independent jurisdiction to
which he has been called by the church
within its limits. This prohibition of
the translation CT a diocesan OF assistant
bishop must, think, commend Itself to
every ObSerYaut mind upon two main
grounds: First, because it tends to fixed
diocesan policy, and to permanent social
aud ecclesiastical relations between the
eplec pal authority and the body Of the
church in each organized diocese, and
sec0ud, because it protects uiOceses num-
erically Or financially weak from the eff
forts which might otherwise be some
times successfully made by those stronger
III numbers or wealth to withdraw from
l,a 6
who are often found presiding owe. small
dioceses. But with domestic missionary
bishops the case is different. They are
$sat by the General Convention to their
mission tields as subordinate Jurisdictions,
and are not col!ed by the voice of the
church in their territory.
Nor is their tenure dependent upon
their own will When the whole or any
part of a missionary jurisdiction has been
organized into an independent diocese
the church within such organism eXerci-
ses its own Judgment, and may choose as
its diocesan either its missionary bishop
or any eligible priest of the church. thus
| either depriving the missionary bishop of
his whole field or ourtaiiing it without
his assent The reasons, therefore, for
bidding tae translation Of a DIOCESAN
bishop do not apply to the case OF mis-
| si0nary bishop. If section 10 Of canon
- stood alone think there could DE no
doubt of Bishop Adams eligibility TO the
| Diocese of Easton because while the
conditions of resignation in subsectious
/, > and B are general, the declaration of
consequent ineligib!ity in subsection
is expressly limited to resigned dioae-
| san OF assistant bishop. But the cues
ton is not tGua left to construction
Canon -, section !, which treats of do
nestle missionary bishops, in subsection
! expressly provides that any bishop or
bishops e!eotod and consecrated under
this section shall be entitled to seat il
the House Of Bishops, u}tG s{aH B, aligi
bic To the office of Diocesan Bishop in
any organized diocese within the United
States In such case it is clear that his
resi- Iuati,n must be contaminated pur-
suant 80 section before he could become
Tie bishop of the diocese to which ho is
chosen, aud | think neither further eta
tloa from The oan0pS nor algnmeut of
any character can be required to demon
&tratc that Bishop ALams's title to the
fipiscopate Of FAStoh, when approved by
She majority Of bishops and standing
committees, viii be absolutely unim-
PeacAabte Yours respectfully,
JAMES y. PEARCE
Chestertown, Md, July Is.